The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effectiveness of a social robot, “Paro,” in a VA long-term care setting.
Abstract
Interest in animal assisted interventions (AAI) has grown over the years, but acceptance of AAI by the clinical and research community has been hampered by safety, hygiene, and logistical concerns. Advances in the field of social robotics have provided a promising route to deliver AAI while avoiding these aforementioned obstacles. Although there has been promising initial research on social robotics in older adults, to date there has been no such research conducted with a veteran population. The present pilot study followed 23 veteran residents of a Veterans Affairs (VA) geropsychiatric long-term care facility over the span of approximately a year and a half. It was found that use of Paro, a social robot, resulted in increased observed positive affective and behavioral indicators, with concomitant decreases observed in negative affective and behavioral indicators. The authors concluded that Paro is likely an effective nonpharmacological approach for managing dementia-related mood and behavior problems with veterans in VA long term care facilities. They additionally observed that Paro is best presented to residents who are relatively calm and approachable, as opposed to actively exhibiting behavior or mood problems. Future research directions are discussed in light of both the positive results noted and the inherent limitations of our pilot study. (PsycINFO Database Record
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Several studies lacked a control or comparison group, particularly Lane et al. [31], Dinesen et al. [35], Harris-Gersten et al. [36], and Sung et al. [32], which limits the ability to attribute observed changes directly to robotic intervention.”
From The Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Pet Therapy in Improving the Care of Patients: A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as [31]
Citations
Cites
Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322 · Cited by 7,217
The Psychosocial Effects of a Companion Robot: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Robinson, H., MacDonald, B., Kerse, N., & Broadbent, E. (2013) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2013.02.007 · Cited by 546
Robot therapy for elders affected by dementia
Wada, K., Shibata, T., Musha, T., & Kimura, S. (2008) · IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine · doi:10.1109/memb.2008.919496 · Cited by 229
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Scoping review on the use of socially assistive robot technology in elderly care
Abdi, J., Al-Hindawi, A., Ng, T., & Vizcaychipi, M. P. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018815 · Cited by 583
Yu, C., Sommerlad, A., Sakure, L., & Livingston, G. (2022) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2022.101633 · Cited by 131
Gasteiger, N., Ahn, H. S., Lee, C., Lim, J., MacDonald, B. A., Kim, G. H., & Broadbent, E. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3533726 · Cited by 78
Trajbarič, T., Muršec, D., Svenšek, A., Štiglic, G., & Gosak, L. (2026) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app16104683
Metadata
- Authors
- Lane, G. W., Noronha, D., Rivera, A., Craig, K., Yee, C., Mills, B., & Villanueva, E.
- ORCID
- Rivera, Alexandra
- Venue
- Psychological Services
- Published
- 2016-08
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 292-299
- ISSN
- 1939-148X
- 1541-1559
- Cited by
- 96
- References
- 3
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review